Results
Having found results from the two surveys to be closely aligned in our initial analyses, we combined the responses to both surveys (having also done so in the analyses we offered in the previous reports). Furthermore, as we did in our previous analyses, we went beyond the calculation of means and variances for the two different groups. We conducted simple T-Tests to determine if differences between responses to any of the survey questions by the USA and non-USA coaches were significant. We present the mean, variance and T-Test Scores in this section of the report for each of the questions on which we focused in the first seven studies.
In addition, because some significant (or near significant) differences were found, we present not only the t-test score for each question, but also the degrees of freedom and, when significant, the critical value (cv) associated with the .10, .05, .01 or .001 level of significance.
I recognize that the critical values assigned to the determination of significance level for each t-test is not truly valid, for when multiple analyses are being conducted, the critical values should be set much higher – for there are likely to be more false positives with multiple analyses. Furthermore, it is not generally acceptable to declare a result “significant” if the differences only reach the .10 level. I am engaging these “lax” criteria because this study is to be considered preliminary. “Significant” results should be considered quite tentative, given these lax criteria and the small sample population responding to the inventory. The “significant’ results obtained should be selected as the focal points for future studies.
At this point in my review of results from the Development of Coaches Surveys, I will also begin to link results from my previous analyses with results from this analysis of potential differences between USA and non-USA respondents. I will focus, in particular, on my analyses of ICF and non-ICF respondents, as well as those primarily doing personal coaching and organizational coaching. These initial comparisons lead the way to the more comprehensive statistical analyses I will be conducting during phases two of this study. I will see if there is a clustering of certain characteristics and ways in which these clusters might relate to several general outcomes regarding coaching development. Hopefully, this interweaving of results will yield important questions that can be addressed in future studies. Now on to the results from my eight analysis.
